DAIMLERCHRYSLER CORPORATION, Petitioner - Supreme Court ...

TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
IDENTITY OF PARTIES AND COUNSEL .................................................................................
INDEX OF AUTHORITIES .........................................................................................................
INTEREST OF AMICUS C b J .............................................................................................. 1
STATEMENT OF THE CASE ...................................................................................................... 2
STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION .............................................................................................. 2
ISSUES PRESENTED FOR REVEEW ......................................................................................... 2
STATEMENT OF FACTS .................................. ................................
SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT .....................................................
ARGUMENT .............................................................................................
I. NAMED PLAINTIFFS’ ASSERTION OF “NO INJURY” CLAIMS
UNDER TEXAS LAW MAKES THEM INADEQUATE CLASS
REPRESENTATIVES AND RENDERS CLASS LITIGATION
INFERIOR TO ALTEFWATE FORMS OF DISPUTE RESOLUTION. ........
11.
111.
SOUND POLICY REASONS JUSTIFY DENYING RECOGNITION OF “NO
INKRY” LAWSUITS ...................................................................................................... 6
THE OVERWHELMING WEIGHT OF AUTHORITY HOLDS THAT “NO
INJURY CLASS ACTION LAWSUITS ARE NOT VIABLE ............. ....... 14
IV. REFUSAL TO RECOGNIZE “NO INJURY“ CLASS ACTIONS WOULD NOT
LEAVE PLAINTIFFS WITHOUT A POTENTIAL REMEDY ..................................... 20
coNcLusIoN ........................................... ................................... ........................... 22
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
TAB A: CORPORATE MEMBERS OF THE PRODUCT LIABILITY
ADVISORY COUNCIL
i
iv
...
111